Search

The Secretary of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA") possesses one of the most challenging job descriptions in the executive branch of the federal government.1 To hold this position is to preside over the largest integrated healthcare system in the United States, one of the largest and most bureaucratically complex systems of benefits in the federal government, and a vast network of national cemeteries.2 Fulfilling this job successfully requires a high proficiency in medicine, law, technology, and military affairs, coupled with the organizational ability to manage all of the various moving parts within this sprawling agency to complete their duties efficiently and effectively.3 A delicate tightrope walk comes with every aspect of this post, safeguarding federal dollars while simultaneously ensuring that the agency carries out the mission assigned to it by decades of statutes and affirmed by decades of case law: providing a pro-claimant, non-adversarial system for veterans and their families to receive the benefits earned by virtue of their military service.4 Perhaps most challenging of all, stepping into this position means filling a seat that has been in the public eye throughout recent memory, attempting to reverse course and erase a troubled legacy of scandals, abuses of power, inefficiencies, and attempts to sweep under the rug systemic problems that directly contradicted the VA's duties of serving the interests of all who served in this nation's military. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article addresses disputes and analyzes legal powers to mandate face masks in public places amid the global COVID-19 pandemic. Topics discussed are power of state and governments to impose a mask-wearing requirement, laws forbidding mask-wearing, conflict between laws and ability of state governments to address public health concerns, rights and obligations of employers, employees and patrons regarding mask-wearing, and authority of the federal government to require mask-wearing nationwide.

The article discuses the legal and practical issues involving the operations of Veterans Treatment Courts in various U.S. states, particularly the differing eligibility categorizations used by each state. Other topics include the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution on equal protection of the laws and its impact on the alleged discrimination in said courts, as well as the perceived increasing Equal Protection Clause violations by said courts.

The article offers insight to the proclaim ant status of the U. S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and discuss the problems associated with it. Topics discussed include role of VA in addressing veteran's claims; enactment of U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) by the U.S. Congress for adjudicating veterans benefits disputes; and increasing the services in the process in the claimants.

The article focuses on the rejection of several nominees for the U.S. Supreme Court after the U.S. 2016 presidential election. It mentions issues regarding the unsuccessful nomination of Merrick Garland and history of the U.S. Senate's refusal to confirm John Rutledge to the office of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. It also mentions approach of U.S. President Donald Trump regarding the nomination of judges to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The article focuses on the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) which provide protections to servicemembers on active duty and to minted veterans, it also mentions issue related to mandatory arbitration for denying SCRA protection to servicemembers, and financial stability of military personals.

The article offers information of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer and discusses his conceptions related to freedom of speech. Topics discussed include protection granted to freedom of speech under U.S. Constitution; attributes of Breyer's life prior to his Supreme Court appointment; and New York Times v. Sulliuan court case on same.

Millions of older Americans suffer from physical, mental, emotional, or financial abuse. Frequently, their abusers are family members, close friends, or other individuals who occupy positions of trust in their elderly victims' lives. Unfortunately, due to a variety of factors, elder abuse is a tragically underreported crime. Experts estimate that for every case of elder abuse revealed to law enforcement authorities, five more cases go unreported, allowing the abuse to continue unchecked. To combat this secrecy surrounding elder abuse, federal and state lawmakers enacted statutes requiring certain people-- or, in some jurisdictions, all people--to report instances of suspected elder abuse to designated authorities. These laws circumvent the need for victims to self-report the crimes perpetrated against them, shining a light on perpetrators of these terribly damaging offenses. However, some commentators argue that laws mandating reporting of perceived elder abuse unnecessarily impinge upon the constitutionally protected liberties of older Americans. Critics claim that these statutes discriminate against elderly individuals, infantilizing older men and women by assuming that they need greater state oversight because of their age. This article seeks to reconcile the valid points on both sides of this debate. Rather than abandoning the important protections that mandatory elder abuse reporting laws provide, this article calls for these laws to remain on the books. However, it also suggests that these laws include several much-needed provisions safeguarding older Americans' constitutional liberty interests. By examining mandatory elder abuse reporting laws in several jurisdictions and identifying best practices, this article aims to provide steps toward finding a better balance between autonomy and protection in this area of the law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses New York Governor George E. Pataki's contribution to the criminal convictions procedure of the New York State Court of Appeals, as of January 2015. Topics discussed include decision of the court in several cases including 'People v. O'Doherty,' and 'People v. Ranghelle;' the U.S. Supreme Court's holdings in criminal cases; and Pataki's six appointments to the Court of Appeals.

The article offers information about the efforts of an American politician, governor and member of the Democratic Party Mario Cuomo in establishing a bipartisan Court of Appeals. Topics discussed include rights of the Governor Andrew Cuomo of appointing the judges of the Court of Appeals of the State of New York after the elections, impact of Governor's right on the political appointments and impact of bipartisanship as well as diversity on the appointments of the Court of Appeals.

The article discusses the problems faced by the elderly veterans in navigating the U.S. United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits system. Topics discussed include VA benefits for elderly veterans, process of applying for VA benefits, and concerns with the VA's fiduciary program. It mentions the issues related to pension.

The article presents information on a situation in which a golf player was hit with a golf ball in his eye. It informs about several court cases related to sports field including Farone v. Hunter Mountain Ski Bowl Inc., Farrell v. Hochhauser. It also informs that a better solution in such cases resides in the theory of comparative negligence.

The article presents a speech by Benjamin P. Pomerance, executive editor at the Albany Law School, delivered in the law review symposium held at the Albany Law School, Albany, New York, on September 27, 2012, in which he discussed the right to freedom of speech, First Amendment protections, and free expression rights in the U.S.